I don’t support the bombing of Iran, but where is the US media that reflects my opinions? I will literally throw money at any publication using the “T” word to describe Trump’s actions here.
If you were around for the last bush terms you'll know that anti war media is going to be restricted to small circulation news papers and blogs. Any large TV channel will follow the white house on this kind of thing, with varying flavors of reluctance about the necessity of it or exaggeration of the threat posed by WMDs, etc.
Try small news sites on the scale of 404media or social media commentators you trust, I guess.
We might not be in this mess if US media weren't utterly compromised. I don't know how we get back to a world where there are news outlets with principles, but the free market of ideas doesn't seem to be working out.
From my poli sci student days, AP wire and (yes, really) the Christian Science Monitor were considered about as good as you could get for straight reporting of events without much of a slant (so far as that's possible). That was a while ago, though. And they'll still use biased language for US and allied actions versus our "enemies".
If you're seeking news with an actual leftward lean (not "leftist" CNN and "leftist" NPR and "leftist" NYT, which, LMFAO, sure Jan) to anything even remotely resembling the rightward lean of a Fox or your average AM radio program, your options are extremely limited. I guess Democracy Now! and The Nation. They don't do a ton of their own reporting AFAIK (outside labor action and issues, and sometimes environmental movement action, on which DN local correspondents are often practically the only people covering them) and are more on the commentary/analysis side.
You can also check out stuff like the journal Foreign Affairs, for this kind of topic. Your library probably gets it, no need to pay. It's more for gauging the zeitgeist among the mainstream international politics wonk/consultant class than anything else, but sometimes contributors accidentally write something more broadly insightful, too.
Try non-US media for foreign affairs topics. Even machine-translated French or German or Indian papers, that kind of thing, if you can't read the language. Sometimes they'll spend a lot of time on stories that have practically zero visibility in the US, and with a different perspective that's less deferential to the US.
(Pro tip: for any story that features Trump himself heavily, and especially lots of quotes from him, it'll be 1,000% more fun to read in the BBC's pidgin English service. Try not to think too hard about whether your enjoyment of it is kind of mean to speakers of pidgin English, and just bask in the distance & shifted perspective [and, yes, humor] the language difference provides for these stories in particular.)
nemomarx|8 months ago
Try small news sites on the scale of 404media or social media commentators you trust, I guess.
idle_zealot|8 months ago
stevenwoo|8 months ago
unknown|8 months ago
[deleted]
phendrenad2|8 months ago
thesources|8 months ago
If you're seeking news with an actual leftward lean (not "leftist" CNN and "leftist" NPR and "leftist" NYT, which, LMFAO, sure Jan) to anything even remotely resembling the rightward lean of a Fox or your average AM radio program, your options are extremely limited. I guess Democracy Now! and The Nation. They don't do a ton of their own reporting AFAIK (outside labor action and issues, and sometimes environmental movement action, on which DN local correspondents are often practically the only people covering them) and are more on the commentary/analysis side.
You can also check out stuff like the journal Foreign Affairs, for this kind of topic. Your library probably gets it, no need to pay. It's more for gauging the zeitgeist among the mainstream international politics wonk/consultant class than anything else, but sometimes contributors accidentally write something more broadly insightful, too.
Try non-US media for foreign affairs topics. Even machine-translated French or German or Indian papers, that kind of thing, if you can't read the language. Sometimes they'll spend a lot of time on stories that have practically zero visibility in the US, and with a different perspective that's less deferential to the US.
(Pro tip: for any story that features Trump himself heavily, and especially lots of quotes from him, it'll be 1,000% more fun to read in the BBC's pidgin English service. Try not to think too hard about whether your enjoyment of it is kind of mean to speakers of pidgin English, and just bask in the distance & shifted perspective [and, yes, humor] the language difference provides for these stories in particular.)
FirmwareBurner|8 months ago
X/Twitter is that thing.